|
Post by Josh on Nov 17, 2010 17:35:34 GMT -8
Do you think at least some have sinned (ala Jude 6 for instance?)
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 17, 2010 18:49:38 GMT -8
Sorry, I should have said since some have sinned (not if). So yes, I believe them to be free moral agents. Now, let me have it already.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 17, 2010 20:08:23 GMT -8
OK. First, this thread has been driving me crazy because it's so long and it's been going on so long and I can't keep it all straight. So, I printed the whole thing up and picked it apart to come up with three lists to help this discussion move forward hopefully more productively. Chris and Robin- can you verify that these lists are accurate before we go on? Items We Have Agreed On:1. Satan is an individual, personal, self-aware creature 2. Satan is evil 3. It would be inconsistent with God’s revealed nature to find fault with/ assign blame to, or punish a creature who had no free will. 4. Demons/ Fallen Angels are free moral agents than have sinned and will be punished Propositions I Believe that You Disagree With or Think Cannot be Reasonably Proven:1. Satan was originally good 2. Satan is a free moral agent 3. Satan rebelled against God 4. God is at war with Satan 5. Satan will be punished 6. God cannot create an evil thing 7. Satan is equal to a Fallen Angel 8. God has a “standing army” Items Which Are Still Unclear to Me:1. Both Chris and I at some point on this thread have said that God is in some way responsible for evil- but Chris recently seems to be retracting that. I think God is responsible and a cause of evil in the sense that he created a universe where evil decisions can occur with attendant evil results, but not responsible is the sense of endorsing, commissioning, or being the direct causal agent of evil. I still think it’s quite possible with enough defining of terms we might come to some agreement on this issue. 2. Do we agree that the serpent in Genesis 3 was in some way Satan/ the Devil? 3. Do we agree that Satan is a sinner? (1 John 3:8)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 17, 2010 20:17:26 GMT -8
Sorry, I should have said since some have sinned (not if). So yes, I believe them to be free moral agents. Now, let me have it already. Chris- you act so impatient when I proceed carefully but you hammer me when I don't. A guy just can't win!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 17, 2010 20:33:00 GMT -8
But you said:
To make me wait is like making a child wait on Christmas morning, or a groom on his wedding night. ;D
I was dying to hear what "further point" you had to throw at me.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 17, 2010 20:47:55 GMT -8
Some grooms only, alas. But this is getting awkward..... In order to move on I really need some feedback on my lists. Do they sound accurate to you?
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 18, 2010 8:45:18 GMT -8
Looks fairly accurate, but some clarification may still be needed.
For example, under "Items we agree on", you said.
"3. It would be inconsistent with God’s revealed nature to find fault with/ assign blame to, or punish a creature who had no free will."
I think that the word punish needs to be defined before I can jump on board. The way I see it, Punishment would have to have the purpose of both deterrence, and rehabilitation. Is that consistent with your understanding?
Also under "Items still unclear" you said.
"3. Do we agree that Satan is a sinner? (1 John 3:8)"
Do you take 1 John 3:8, as literal? If so, how do you reconcilee your view that Satan was once good, and then rebelled, when this verse states "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil."?
Also, are the works of the devil the "sinning", or is the devil's tempting of humanity, or perhaps something in between?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2010 11:22:39 GMT -8
Looks fairly accurate, but some clarification may still be needed. For example, under "Items we agree on", you said. "3. It would be inconsistent with God’s revealed nature to find fault with/ assign blame to, or punish a creature who had no free will."I think that the word punish needs to be defined before I can jump on board. The way I see it, Punishment would have to have the purpose of both deterrence, and rehabilitation. Is that consistent with your understanding? What I mean in that sentence by punish is simply God allowing negative consequences to come to someone who has disobeyed him. This isn't a issue of literal or not- it is an issue of how to understand "beginning" literally as the beginning of the universe or literally as the beginning of the earth or humanity. So, first I'll say that I think 1 John 3:8 is the smoking gun for my case. There is no reason to understand the phrase the "devil has sinned" to mean anything other than that he has chosen to do evil and is morally culpable for it. I have a word study ready on this at home, so I can go into that more later. But anyway, as a rule of hermeneutics, we take what is clearer to help us understand what is less clear. The less clear in this case might be, from at least your perspective*, what "from the beginning means". But, and follow my chain of logic here, if it's clear that Satan has sinned, then it is clear that God will judge Him, and if God judges Him it's clear (as per our agreement above) that he is guilty, and if He is guilty, he must have had a choice, and if he had a choice, he must have originally been created good. So that logic helps us understand that which I think is already apparent (and also a literal interpretation): from the beginning mmeans from the beginning of earth or humanity's history. *it seems obvious to me, but...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2010 11:28:55 GMT -8
Ok, Chris. If you admit that there are some angels who have disobeyed (sinned) and will be judged for it, but aren't sure about whether this applies to satan or not, how do you explain that the fallen angels are spoken of as belonging to satan? (Matt 25:41, Revelation 12:9). If Satan is an obedient servant of God, how is it that he becomes the prince of those who are disobedient servants of God? Before you answer, consider how this wouldn't be a "kingdom divided against itself".
Related to our prior discussion about warfare, Satan is spoken of as having a kingdom (Luke 11:18) comprised of demons, and he is called it's prince (archon). This kingdom is often described in the NT as in direct opposition to the kingdom of heaven- two kingdom at odds with each other, each with it's lord, each with it's servants, each with it's agenda, at war with each other). (don't have time to provide all the references, but I can if needed)
Leaving God the Father out of the equation for just a moment (if that's even possible), isn't it clear that Jesus is the head of the church, and therefore Jesus has declared war upon the enemy's kingdom?
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 18, 2010 13:56:49 GMT -8
Very well. So how would you understand John 8:44?
"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it."
Who has the devil murdered? Could it be that the devil is a murderer due to the fact that people murder as a result of falling the the devils temptations? I don't know of any case where the devil has murdered anyone without having a human agent as the instrument to carry out the bloody act. Yet, we still refer to the devil as a murderer. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 18, 2010 14:09:05 GMT -8
I don't see where it has been established that Satan can disobey. Just because something or someone is destroyed doesn't necessarily mean that they are being punished. Sometime things just outlive their usefulness.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2010 14:49:24 GMT -8
If he is a sinner (and a murderer, for whatever reason, even if we don't know it), he is disobedient. The term murder(er) always implies guilt. If John wanted to use a neutral term he could have said "killer".
I didn't say that being destroyed=punished. I agree with the last two sentences.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2010 19:20:27 GMT -8
Ok, Chris. If you admit that there are some angels who have disobeyed (sinned) and will be judged for it, but aren't sure about whether this applies to satan or not, how do you explain that the fallen angels are spoken of as belonging to satan? (Matt 25:41, Revelation 12:9). If Satan is an obedient servant of God, how is it that he becomes the prince of those who are disobedient servants of God? Before you answer, consider how this wouldn't be a "kingdom divided against itself". Related to our prior discussion about warfare, Satan is spoken of as having a kingdom (Luke 11:18) comprised of demons, and he is called it's prince (archon). This kingdom is often described in the NT as in direct opposition to the kingdom of heaven- two kingdom at odds with each other, each with it's lord, each with it's servants, each with it's agenda, at war with each other). (don't have time to provide all the references, but I can if needed) Leaving God the Father out of the equation for just a moment (if that's even possible), isn't it clear that Jesus is the head of the church, and therefore Jesus has declared war upon the enemy's kingdom? I just realized you broached this topic on the previous page a bit when you said: Read more: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=warfare&action=display&thread=1334&page=5#ixzz15h7fxuCdbut I think it's kind of funny that you used Sauron and Saruman as examples because they are both archtypes of the traditional understanding of satan as an originally good then corrupted demi-god. Tolkien would be appalled!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2010 19:52:27 GMT -8
I don't expect a response on this, and I don't know that I agree with this, but I just thought I'd throw it in becaue you mentioned this earlier in this thread, but Boyd sees Jesus' rebuke of the winds and waves on the sea of Galilee as a rebuke of rebellious spiritual adversaries adversly affecting nature. So, I guess his take would be that "rebuke" there is not poetic license but the language of spiritual warfare.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 18, 2010 20:56:43 GMT -8
Whoa...a lot to catch up on here. I'm going to have to look over the list of agree/disagrees and get back to you. But first, I just want to say...very nicely done. The 1 John passage definitely strengthens your case about Satan being a moral agent. I’m don’t mind conceding that particular point. Although, it could be argued that not all sin is intentional (Gen 20, Lev 4, etc), so there might be a loophole there if someone really wants to press the issue. But I don’t really have a dog in that fight, so I think you’re probably right about Satan rebelling. However, it still doesn’t make him a former archangel, the first worship leader, or any of the other things that the traditional view asserts from Isa 14 and Ezek 28. But, even if he did rebel, it still doesn’t solve the main problem. Why is Satan still alive and active if God doesn’t have a purpose for him? I really don’t see how it matters much if God made Satan a tempter, or he rebelled and became one. What can’t be denied, is that God has the power to take Satan out, yet leaves him here in the world to tempt. Why is that? More importantly, why does it matter if God made Satan the way he is or not? What do you think it changes? Re: the war thing. I’ve already gave my opinion on how Satan is called the “prince” of this world. How do you think he came to be “prince”? Did God give him that authority? Some people have authority because their followers grant it to them. I think that’s the case with Satan. I think you’re 1 John passage answers that the way I’ve been trying to (but failing miserable apparently). 1 John 3:8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. NKJV What are the “works” of the devil? Is it not sin? So is Jesus at war with Satan or with his works (sin)? We already know that God will destroy Satan, so He obviously can at any time he wishes. But the thing is, God is more interested in destroying his works because He loves the world (the people in it that is). What I don’t believe is that God was somehow taken off-guard by Satan’s rebellion and is now somehow trying to compensate through warring with Satan. I believe God is sovereign, He has a plan, and He’s methodically executing that plan. Which is why I believe the fall was inevitable, known by God, and planned for. Even if Satan is unaware of it and an unwilling participant, I think he is ultimately an instrument of God. Even if he’s rebellious, God has him right where he wants him and is able to make use of him.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 18, 2010 21:08:48 GMT -8
Ok, about the items: Didn't Jesus curse a fig tree?....just sayin' ;D Yeah, that's about right, but I think I'll go ahead give you number 3 since you worked so hard at trying to prove it. On point #1 - You seem to see a big difference between God directly causing a thing and choosing to allow it. If God is sovereign, omnipotent, and omniscient, then I would say there is not much difference. But keep defining terms, maybe you can enlighten me. Point #2 - I think the serpent is either a metaphor or a real creature possessed by Satan. Point #3 - Yeah, you convinced me that he's a "sinner". What next?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 18, 2010 21:11:03 GMT -8
I don't care much about what Tolkien thought, I can use parts of his story for my purposes without necessarily agreeing with his theology.
|
|